#93160 by Bill Jones on 8/08 at 12:11 pm: “...A Federal Slave Army is one of the worst ideas I’ve heard in a long time, and is totally inconsistent with the Constitution. The victims of this scheme wouldn’t be “serving their Country” They be doing the bidding of the corrupt thugs in D.C. and their corporate masters....”

“America: Freedom to Fascism” - Director’s Authorized Version http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1656880303867 390173 1 hr 51 min http://www.freedomtofascism.com

#92097 by cyrena on 8/03 at 10:32 pm

Thanks for your “perspective” link Cyrena - not exactly the kind of factual reference I had in mind, but at least you looked outside the box you were typing into, even if it was just an opinion piece… but it appears that fact and (your) opinion are synonomous to you.

In the US, guilt is the result of due process, not accusation.  Simply because you believe Bush, or whoever, committed crimes doesn’t mean they did.  You can cite the Constitution all you want as your “proof”, but the irony there would be unbearable since you’d be ignoring the very rights that it (and the Bill of Rights, and other amendments) guarantee… one of which is that courts assign guilt, not left wing private news sites or their readers.

Bush has not been indicted, let alone convicted, of any crime - despite your belief (and that of the blatantly partisan websites you inhabit, like “truthout") that the Constitution itself somehow convicts him.  There’s really no argument here.  I believe that you believe Bush is guilty of crimes.  You’re entitled to that opinion, but please understand that that’s what it is.  I don’t think I need to post anymore on this topic.

#92074 by Marshall on 8/03 at 8:43 pm

• Cyrena - Though you see impeachment as a slam-dunk, like Sheehan, you’re well in the minority; both in public and in Congressional opinion.

Yep, I’m responding twice again Marshall, to a different part of your same posting.

And yeah, while impeachment has not been a “slam dunk” (nor have I ever suggested that it is a “slam dunk” any more than it has been a “slam dunk” for me to go to work and do my job everyday) it IS easy enough, if one simply follows the instructions in the manual.

And, while I’m also very accustomed to being in the “minority” in most of life’s demographics, I am not in the “minority” at all, in public opinion on this matter.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/080307J.shtml

And, you can also link to a copy of the Constitution at the Library of Congress, (it has not yet been removed – at least not that I’m aware of) or….if that’s too much trouble, just use the google. Type in U.S. Constitution in the search window, and it’ll all come right up for you.

I agree with everything in this except for two things:

1. I don’t think mandating service is very much in line with a free society. I’d rather see it offered as an opportunity. I don’t think that too much freedom is the problem and that it can be solved by more coercion.

2. I think saying everyone has to join the military is a bit over the top. If it has to be mandatory, then one should have the option of being a firefighter, EMT, whatever.

Yet you cite only your opinions in response, so that statement rings rather hollow.

Oh Marshall, PLEASE. The rule of law is hardly my “opinion”, and I didn’t writethe Constitution, so that’s not my “opinion” either. I can hardly post that stuff here, just as I should not have to post the Geneva Conventions, or the Convention Against Torture, or any of the rest of that, because you are supposed to be smart enough to look up that stuff on your own. That’s what makes it a NO BRAINER.

So, we’re back to that. I can’t do your citizen work for you Marshall, because I’m not posting for the purposes of giving you a private tutorship in the basic construction of this nations’ governing structure.

I don’t find the Constitution to be at all ambiguous, and I still think it would be helpful for you to read and comprehend that, before you can move on to what might be advanced commmentary.

For people like me, the Constitution IS a no brainer, and is basically idiot proof, as long as one is able to read.

It does not, (and I would repeat this) reflect “policy”, (which is OPINION oriented) but rather the rules of the process.

You don’t get that. You’ve never been able to get that, because you consistently indulge in the very thing that you accuse others of doing, which is to parse words and pick and choose pieces of propaganda with support your own, OPINIONS.

Fortunately, most people don’t fall for it. Still, as I’ve mentioned previously, it’s just as well that your posts do occassionally toss the poison in the midst, if only to keep it real, so that we know there are people like you out there....lurking, and dangerous.

Are you posting from Kennebunkport? Do then not have a library there? Ah...probably not.

Cyrena - Though you see impeachment as a slam-dunk, like Sheehan, you’re well in the minority; both in public and in Congressional opinion.  That doesn’t mean you have no argument - only that its basis is far from a “no brainer” as you seem to think.  Regardless, it’s obvously not going to happen so the point is moot.

<<None of the stuff you ever site, actually is legitimate though.>>

Yet you cite only your opinions in response, so that statement rings rather hollow.

#91596 by Douglas Chalmers on 8/01 at 10:46 pm
(476 comments total): “...More strange happeneings - the very recent TruthDig blog “The Last Days of Democracy” has been removed. “Sorry, Page Not Found” is the message I keep getting for the past 24 hours despite contacting them. Something I said there that yours or ZK’s downtown LA friends didn’t relish, Scheer? See http://www.truthdig.com/20070730_the_last_days_of_demo cracy/ .....”

I see that “The Last Days of Democracy” page is back now with a new address - but my posting about “Bravery” has been removed. Why???

That proves that it really was something I said that was being censored. So much for you version of FREEDOM OF THE PRESS gone sour, Scheer!!! http://www.truthdig.com/interview/item/20070802_last_d ays_of_democracy/

Additionally, all of the comments from the alternative podcast page link have been removed. That is really sleazy!!! Put them back, eh, Scheer.... mine too! http://www.truthdig.com/podcast/item/20070730_the_last _days_of_democracy/

“ DOING & BEING SIMPLE LOVE “

ACTION… Create Earth Ball Homes and Greenhouses

4 Any Earth Citizens Around OUR Earth, In Need or want

more info at…

http://www.EarthBall.org

Your help is wanted/needed, Thank U, Roger at RogerART dot com

Addendum;

I am presently living in an Asian country ruled by a military junta.  They have blocked 40,000 web sites.  I love youtube but it is blocked.  Every time I cannot connect to a site my first question is; is it the junta?  Think about this.  It is more important than you can imagine.

My point is; don’t take this freedom of expression on the web for granted (or any other for that matter)...it can be taken from you in seconds.  What will you do if it is suddenly taken away?  You cannot express yourself, can’t contact your favorite blogs, e-mail goes away...then what?  I would strongly suggest you find an alternative way to organize and communicate...this connection is so fragile...you have no idea.

Is this off topic...I sure hope not.

#91497 by Rob D on 8/01 at 2:54 pm
(Unregistered commenter)

I have to say...of all of the comments I’ve read here you pretty much nail it.  Corporatism, inertia, money and apathy.

I’ve been railing for years that we need to get off our ass.  My cynicism exceedes my hope and I find myself laughing out loud...with tears in my eyes.

#91862 by Marshall on 8/02 at 9:23 pm

• ….”Cyrena - Not sure how you misconstrued my post to question the constitutionality of impeachment; my point was that impeachment isn’t a tool to be invoked upon disagreement with policy, as Ritter and I agree is happening in this case.”…

Marshall, I went back to try and understand myself, how I could have “misconstrued” your post. (I‘m always willing to learn, and try to comprehend these various world views). Sometimes things get lost in the translation, (especially via the internet). So, this is where I got whatever I misconstrued:

• #91617 by Marshall on 8/02 at 2:21 am
“Cyrena - the existence of an impeachment campaign is no proof of its
necessity or its constitutionality.”….  As someone who opposed the Iraq war, Ritter makes clear the corrupt nature of invoking impeachment because one disagrees with policy.”

I think I see the problem though. We are obviously looking at things on different levels, and I generally have a tendency to think more on the nonpartisan level, when it comes to the foundational structure of our government, and the Constitution, is not “policy”. “Policy” is obviously, incredibly partisan, because “policies” of the past several years have been determined by the Oligarchy, that clearly does not represent the interests of the citizens of the US. So THAT would be a partisan difference in “policy”.

But, that’s not even what I’m talking about, and so we aren’t even on the same page here, because I’m at the very basic, and what you might even call conservative level? I mean, the textbook (Constitution) example of an executive branch that would need to be IMPEACHED – is THIS one!!

Seriously, all partisan politics aside, this is a NO BRAINER, and has nothing to do with “policy” disagreements, and EVERYTHING to do with the myriad laws that have been violated by these people.

Your focus is always narrow, which we can see, because you present this argument in context to the war on Iraq, and that is only a “subgroup” of the impeachable offenses that have been committed by this regime. So no, it’s not about a “policy” disagreement. Not the same. “Policies” change, the law does not, except by already agreed upon procedures.

So, I would say that’s really your primary bad habit; mixing partisan ideologies (and the narrow nature of them) and confusing the resultant “policies” with the foundation of our system, as outlined by the Constitution, as well as civil codes of our laws. You see it as a “policy disagreement” and that is incredibly cynical, and offends the senses of even a pragmatic realist such as myself, because I have an overwhelming respect for the rule of law, and integrity, and a very sincerely patriotic attachment to that Constitution.

Meantime, this is a historically unprecedented Constitutional crisis, because our Republic, has in effect, – been HIJACKED-!! The result has been a complete breakdown in the system of checks and balances, and so we are in a seriously dangerous crisis, that Congress has so far failed to resolve. And, because it happens to BE the executive branch, that is primarily responsible for the total breakdown of that part of the system, we don’t have a prayer of reversing this, and getting back on track, UNTIL we can get them out of the cockpit so to speak.

So, that’s my “documentation” for my own view….the Constitution. And, I have no problems at all, with providing bona fide documentations. None of the stuff you ever site, actually is legitimate though. It’s made by fox. So, I’m not “insulting” you, I’m just saying that all of the stuff you post, is most propaganda. And, I agree that it has been very difficult for the average citizen to discern the difference, especially in the past 7 years. We are inclined to “trust” the media, and so it becomes a shock when we realize we’ve been so intentionally mislead, and these same corporate news people, continue to do that.

#91856 by cyrena on 8/02 at 8:29 pm:- #91780 by 500,000 Dead Iraqi Children: “I thought Scahill was out of line back then but I realize now that he probably knew more about Scott than the rest of us...”
“Thanks for the extra insight as well. Scott should take a mental health break. Maybe even retire....”

If we aren’t on some kind of path of denial or refusal, we all have been at some time. Just living in this distorted society with its fantasies and illusory values constantly affects us in some way or another.

Sadly, wanting to make it all right again is only another form of fantasy/illsion/denial as the reality is far different. Everybody must “sweep their own doorsteps” for all of the doorsteps in the street to be clean.

We are all responsible and all accountable so we all must do our part to reform and to create positive change. One person banging their head only eventually results in one person with a sore head. The problem is still unresolved.

That is, now is the time to start acting if people want to make a positive change. Merely waiting for the next election and expecting yet another weary candidate to solve all your problems is no longer enough. That is a sure path to failure in the end.

#91623 by cyrena on 8/02 at 3:35 am
#91621 by cyrena on 8/02 at 2:57 am

Cyrena - Not sure how you misconstrued my post to question the constitutionality of impeachment; my point was that impeachment isn’t a tool to be invoked upon disagreement with policy, as Ritter and I agree is happening in this case.  But you make a great case that the concept of impeachment is actually IN our constitution and I thank you for that.

As to Cindy’s admitted pacifism; I was responding to your implication that I made it up.  I understand that your approach to discussion excludes substantiation and factual reference, so do excuse me for using them - bad habit of mine.

And of course, I’d expect you to malign Scarborough the interviewer instead of addressing the content of the interview - by your logic, you’d better stop visiting Truthdig.com because it frequently posts interviews by his cohorts like O’Reilly… but I don’t see you being critical of that, so I guess it’s okay.

Also - no need to continue posting two responses to me; I actually do read posts the first time and respond to the points rather than the attacking the poster.  Nother bad habit I guess.

#91780 by 500,000 Dead Iraqi Children on 8/02 at

• I thought Scahill was out of line back then but I realize now that he probably knew more about Scott than the rest of us.

Ditto. I saw/heard Scahill as well, and while I never thought he was out of line, (because he didn’t blast Ritter at that particular event) this certainly shows that he knew a lot more than we did.

Thanks for the extra insight as well. Scott should take a mental health break. Maybe even retire.

#91704 by Skruff on 8/02 at 9:24 am: “...Here’s the last days of Democracy site. they repositioned it, but it was not “removed” as I posterd earlier. 
http://www.truthdig.com/podcast/item/20070730_the_last _days_of_democracy/
If this doesn’t work, go to http://www.truthdig.com/podcast/ ...it’s the first article...”

Thanks, guys. Skruff, I did try the podcast before - don’t know what happened. The main page still doesn’t work - http://www.truthdig.com/20070730_the_last_days_of_demo cracy/

#91698 by michael pugliese:

This is precisely why we need more folks like Scott Ritter.

But you won’t get them.

All you will get is more Cindy Sheehan and convergence with the “9-11 Truthers”, wchi means the “anti-war” loony left is beyond dead - it’s become a freak-show laughing stock.

When was the last time you heard CIndy or anyone else on the left criticize Hugo Chavez for shutting down the free press in Venezuela and for his support of repressive Islamic human-rights abusers like Ahmadinejad’s Iran?

This is quite sad...hardly any poster even bothered mentioning the PURE UNADULTERATED FASCISM that National Service IS and IS PART OF....

Serving the State...the siren song of TYRANTS throughout history...National Service was a key to Lenin/Stalin/Mao and the European socialist powermongers…

liberals of the past protested in the streets...now they vociferously propose it(because they want EVERYONE to serve the State) or because it will “stop” the militarization as more of the INDENTURED CITIZENS will be given a “choice” between fightin and dying in the sands of the MiddleEast or…

Carrying bedpans in Ohio....or...digging ditches in New Mexico..or supplying Security for Government operations...or squelching “proterrorist” protesters…

it is a tough call on which route ugly American youth would choose.. lazy, illiterate and unemployed, desensitized to death and INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM AND RESPONSIBILITY AND ACCOUNTABILIy via culture and images and conditioned into following orders choosing to patriotically serve the State through military service..

or socialist goodbodies who want to help the lessfortunate....with the hand and club and EXPROPRIATED MONIES from the pliant American Taxpayer choosing social service…

The obvious statism of the antisocialist?? Conservatives...marching! with the socialist Liberals of today...for a Brave New World - and opposing that evil _____ at the next 2 Minute Hate!!

and we are to believe there is a difference?

and what about those of us REFUSING to be complicit/obeying the serve the State “offer”??

will we be branded “traitors” or “proterrorists” or “ThoughtCriminals”???

would we get to choose which Halliburton Detention Camp we would get sent to????

I never thought I’d see it, but here it is.

An article in TruthCrap with which I have no arguments.

And authored by Scott Ritter, no less.

The best part, of course, is the amusement I get reading all the comments here - making me smile right now.

#91596 by Douglas Chalmers on 8/01 at 10:46 pm
(453 comments total)

“More strange happeneings - the very recent TruthDig blog “The Last Days of Democracy” has been removed. “Sorry, Page Not Found” is the message I keep getting for the past 24 hours despite contacting them.”

Whoa! It’s true...WTF?  I can’t get it either.  WTF? 

Maybe the jigs up!  Man oh man...what a rush if “it” actually happened...the bad guys pull it off and we’re fucked.

Gee...maybe we should have done something!

• As to Cindy’s admission to being a Pacifist who opposed WWII, she stated this at the end of an interview with Joe Scarborough on 3/16/06 which I’ll be happy to post.
***************************
It’s like I said before marshall, the fact that Cindy Sheehan is a pacifist hasn’t a damn thing to do with the destruction of Iraq, or the destruction of our Constitution or the destruction of our Republic. We don’t CARE if she’s a pacifist. OK? It’s not an “admission”, because it’s not a CRIME to be a pacifist. Besides that, she doesn’t quite impress a LOGICAL person as a “pacifist”, which is the opposite of an activist in layperson terminology.

• the existence of an impeachment campaign is no proof of its necessity or its constitutionality.

Are you on crack? Or maybe the same stuff that Limbaugh chews and snorts? Have you even READ the Constitution?

Or, maybe we don’t have the same copy of that document,. I guess we don’t have the where impeachment is not only specifically provided for, but actually REQUIRED, because the founders were smart enough to foresee occasions just such as this. We are fortunate in having only needed to use it once in our own recent history, with the likes of Nixon, and once the procedure was wrapped up, (which took only 4 months) and they were ready to lower the boom, he fortunately had enough sense, (at that last moment) to go ahead and save himself the further disgrace of its formality, by resigning.

Then the radical republicans used it as their lowest point (at least until then) to harass Clinton on some BS that had nothing to do with anybody paying taxes. We didn’t care about that either.

However, it’s mentioned those 10 or so times in our Constitution, to be used for exactly these purposes. To rid ourselves of a regime that is currently involved in the same fascist behavior that brought Europe crashing down.

Now, if you somehow find something -IN OUR CONSTITUTION- that is “unconstitutional”, (like impeachment) and you think it is “corrupting”, then...you really ARE crazier than a loon, and you should quit hanging out with Limbaugh.

Those drugs are dangerous.

As to Cindy’s admission to being a Pacifist who opposed WWII, she stated this at the end of an interview with Joe Scarborough on 3/16/06 which I’ll be happy to post.

It’s like I said before marshall, the fact that Cindy Sheehan is a pacifist hasn’t a damn thing to do with the destruction of Iraq. We don’t care.

As for impeachment being unconstitutional and corruptible, I guess we don’t have the same copy of the same document. Or, you’re just crazier than a loon.

And, if I wanted my household exposed to Joe Scab, we would just watch it here.

We prefer to study the real thing.

#91591 by cyrena on 8/01 at 10:31 pm

Cyrena - the existence of an impeachment campaign is no proof of its necessity or its constitutionality.  As someone who opposed the Iraq war, Ritter makes clear the corrupt nature of invoking impeachment because one disagrees with policy.  Which is why the Democrats won’t come near this issue, as Cindy admits to being told in her clip.  Calling me a hater doesn’t bolster your argument, and I do respect Ritter for standing up among his peers on the left and calling this rather ludicrous campaign what it is.

As to Cindy’s admission to being a Pacifist who opposed WWII, she stated this at the end of an interview with Joe Scarborough on 3/16/06 which I’ll be happy to post.

More strange happeneings - the very recent TruthDig blog “The Last Days of Democracy” has been removed. “Sorry, Page Not Found” is the message I keep getting for the past 24 hours despite contacting them. Something I said there that yours or ZK’s downtown LA friends didn’t relish, Scheer? See http://www.truthdig.com/20070730_the_last_days_of_demo cracy/

#91285 by Marshall on 7/31 at 10:37 pm

• What many who oppose the Iraq war and feel represented by Sheehan fail to realize is that Cindy opposes US involvement in ALL wars, including WWII.  I heard her state this directly in a TV interview.  This, along with the loss of her son, appears to be what fuels her ill-conceived impeachment campaign - Ritter is dead on about that.  Hers is not, nor has it ever been, a position based on rationality.  As such, she appeals to the hatred the far left has for this administration but has been asked to do their thinking for them and she’s obviously not up to the task.
• What many who oppose the Iraq war and feel represented by Sheehan fail to realize is that Cindy opposes US involvement in ALL wars, including WWII.  I heard her state this directly in a TV interview.  This, along with the loss of her son, appears to be what fuels her ill-conceived impeachment campaign - Ritter is dead on about that.  Hers is not, nor has it ever been, a position based on rationality.  As such, she appeals to the hatred the far left has for this administration but has been asked to do their thinking for them and she’s obviously not up to the task.
Ya know Marshall, you definitely do hang in there, as the “main-mole” determined to inject poison wherever you can, and doing a lousy job, since it’s all so very transparent. I swear, you inject more hate into these forums than all of the other “radicals” combined. You give true meaning to the concepts of misogyny, and an overall anti-social rational. I’m thinking there are few (if any) people you don’t HATE.

And, it’s so obvious in your pathetic arguments. Like, why do we CARE, that Cindy Sheehan opposes “ALL” war. (as if we’re likely to take YOUR word for the fact that she said it anyway, and I don’t). It still has nothing to do with what’s going on in real time.

In reality, there’s nothing the LEAST bit “ill-conceived” about her impeachment campaign, since the ideology of the “campaign” as you call it, is based on something as fundamental as THE RULE OF LAW, as in…the CONSTITUTION, which includes our legal commitments, -as a nation- to the International rule of law as well. There isn’t the least thing RADICAL about that. The only thing “radical” about this so-called impeachment “campaign” is that we even have to have it. Had we relied on the Constitution long ago, the Cabal would be gone, and the Middle East would not be burning out of control.

So, it is pathetically sad, that you would continue to twist your own radical agenda through this forum, by corrupting the very definition of what our democracy is about.

On the other hand, it’s probably just as well that you keep posting this stuff, just as a reminder to all, that the danger continues to lurk among us, and it’s people like you, that we have to tell our kids to watch out for.

#91477 by Analog Kid on 8/01 at 1:52 pm

• He said, “If you have to go to war, you will think twice about voting for it”.  Sweden also pays for higher education, guess where that money comes from?  You get that money once you have done your service.  I know these ideas seem socialist, but they are preventive.  Going to the draft only allowed the rich people to use the poor people to fight for what the rich people with benefit from.  If we all have to go to war, people will actually make sure that reasons(WMDs, links to Bin Ladin and what ever excuse they have come up with next) is actually true.

Analog Kid,
You hit the nail on the head here, and this is NOT a “new concept” for us here in America. We certainly had a mandatory selective service process in place in the years of earlier wars, but it’s never been mandatory in the sense that Sweden’s has been. (They have like “the” model government in Sweden) Still, my point was that even as recently as 2003, as the troops were initially heading over, at least two Democratic representatives/senators made the same proposal; basically, to reinstitute at least the lottery nature of the draft that we had in place in Vietnam, requiring everyone to at least register.

Of COURSE everyone went hysterical at the very thought of it, and started demonizing the guys that had suggested it. (and, I would have to go back to notes to verify who they were, but Rangle and Levin come to mind) But, that was the whole point; they KNEW that it would shape up (as a “volunteer” army) to be disproportionately comprised of black and brown citizens, and the near majority of all of them – poor. And, as long as it’s “other people’s blood” no one much cares. (or so it seems). BUT, when there’s even a “chance”, that it could be one of their own, they are likely to think twice about agreeing to a war of choice, or an illegal war of aggression.

So in the end, a re-call to that mandatory “lottery” might very well have prevented this war ever happening. Your lesson from your roommate was very well taken, and I thank you for sharing it.

I will have to do some thinking about the national service idea.  At the same time I agree 100% about progressives letting tin-foil-hat-wearing “truther” and “impeach-now” nutjobs know where they stand in relation to honest, progressive activism.  I opposed the invasion of Iraq and I too am very concerned about issues like directive 51.  At the same time we still have a lot more freedom under the Patriot act than we would under the Milita movement/Nazis or Fundamentalist Muslims who are the source of most of this disinformation about this or that being an inside job.  Just something to think about.  I also think that impeachment basically would serve as a means of overturning the democratic process.  Personally I don’t tolerate any 9/11 Truth or Impeach Now spam (and that’s what it is SPAM) on any of the media or journals I post and I would suggest others do the same.  I don’t feel a need to be polite.  Trust me, if asked your opinion about 9/11 truth and you don’t make it perfectly clear that you think the questioner is a tinhat who has been sold a bill of goods by a bunch of right-wing nuts they will assume that you agree with them about this nonsense and go on slandering innocent people (accusing them of mass murder) in your name.

for Ms. Ash..

I seem to have jumped the gun on that assumption. Went back and reread the post and now I humbly apologize...still pissed at Skruff’s complete idiocies, sorry.

#91431 by Sharon Ash on 8/01 at 11:32 am
(Unregistered commenter)

Anti-war movements work so well, that’s why we have had no more war since Vietnam!!! 

ardee responds:
All this shows is an abysmal lack of knowledge of history. Look it up Ms. Ash, there have been Americans killed in fighting since Viet Nam.....

#91417 by Skruff on 8/01 at 10:26 am

“We see a populace rather estranged and disengaged from the political process, a selfish, me first and damn you culture, apathetic to the needs of anyone not themselves”

Freedom is the ability to act in a way you decide to act!  It is not “improved” by folks saying greed averace and “selfish, me first and damn you ....” attitudes are unacceptable. In a “free country” a miser is free to collect money, a narcisist is free to concentrate on himself, and the rare few who wish to help others are free to sacrifice their money to the cause.  The way one acts in a “free nation” does not have to conform to a majority idea. I don’t like wife-beater tees and flip-flops in fancy restaurants, but that’s my hang up. I have no right to impede behavior that isn’t hurting (physically) me.

Thank you Skruff for proving my point so succinctly...Oh and by the way if you beat your wife or child in front of me Ill kick your ass but good.

What I perceive Ritter as proposing has nothing to do with giving Bush a million more soldiers but in bringing the war home to all those families. The two year service commitment would have to be optional and rewards as tuition or training offered, and I htink it a damn good proposal still.

Forgot to add, other ways to “produce a winning season” are to juice up, buy off officials and play for a team that has the money to afford multi-million dollar contracts for wunderkinder.  What BS, Scott!  With your exposure and influence, you should station yourself every day at Bush’s front door demanding that he and Cheney resign.  I think that would be “service” we could all love.

#91260 by Frank Cajon on 7/31 at 8:15 pm

• ….My other big problem is that whatever one may feel about Cindy Sheehan, she is one of the few that is willing to stand up and be counted and shout out in defiance against a war that took the life of her son.”…

Frank, I too had this problem, with the piece by Scott Ritter, and I’m actually surprised, because I have read other books by him, which have been excellent, but because he’s written from his extensive knowledge in intelligence and his work with the UN as a professional in WMD. His books (or those that I’ve read) have not resulted to attacking an ordinary citizen who has done extraordinary work. And, while she might not be a Martin Luther King, Jr., she’s definitely become a stellar student of his philosophy, and is willing to DO something. I can remember back to the days BEFORE she because her campaign, and it seemed like that was my prayer or chant everyday…why doesn’t somebody DO something. (I was, and so were a few other of us old activists left over from the 60’s and 70’s) but we just couldn’t ROUSE anyone. SHE DID.

• I was in another blog site recently that made fun of her appearance. What in the fuck does that, or her being arrested have to do with anything?

It has nothing to do with nothing, (at least not her appearance) and that’s just ignorance and a super-shallow mentality that you’re hearing/reading.

• Now I hear Scott ripping her credentials to be an antiwar spokesperson because she surrounds herself with ‘radicals’. Sheehan isn’t always going to be 100% on target, but, I’ll venture to guess Scott might have a different perspective if he had lost a son in that pointless hell.

NONE of us is EVER 100% on target, even when we know what that would take. Scott does miss this most important, (ALL important) point that you made. She lost her son, and he didn’t have to die, and he shouldn’t have died, at least not in THIS “war”, and NEITHER SHOULD ANY OF THE REST OF OUR LOVED ONES. It is the banality of it all, that she has forced into the forefront, and that’s the whole point. Millions of people are dying needlessly. SHE figured out, that her son died for nothing, and a coming to that realization is more painful than most can deal with. She’s had to courage to acknowledge that, look it in the eye, and call it what it is, and bring the notion of accountability to focus.

And ALWAYS, (as there have been from the beginning) there will be those who will criticize and smear. One must grow a terribly thick skin, to deal with it, and to stay with it. Losing a child is one awful way to grow it.

I think that Ritter is particularly upset about the presumed “assault” on Mr. Conyers, because he HAS in fact been a quasi-supporter of the anti-war effort. But, he’s still a politician, and he still has the legal power invested in him, to STOP it. It’s what we expect them to DO, as our representatives. And, it’s not about personalities or egos or any of the rest of that. It’s about the fact that the bodies are piling up, as we continue to pour fuel on an out-of-control inferno.

Scott uses a fire analogy here, that I wonder if he even gets himself…which is that the job is to PREVENT the fire in the first place. And when one does occur anyway, the first priority is to save the lives, and then to put the fire OUT. Iraq is the opposite. The fire was intentionally set, by the mere invasion and occupation, and the fuel has always been our military presence there. And yet, instead of trying to put it out, (and save some lives in the process) our regime just keeps adding more fuel, in the form of more troops, and more “construction”. More to burn.

Quite a paradox.

Scott Ritter wants to talk about “morality”?  That’s rich. Why does Truthdig continue to feature his work?
CNN asks him about the arrest for online sexual predator activities and he says he can’t talk about it.  Why does Truthdig continue to feature his work?
Hey Ritter, by your predictions we should be in year two of war with Iran, remember?  Why anyone should believe a word from his mouth at this point is beyond me but what I do know is he’ll never get near my children.

Scott Ritter made a real nice military career for himself and saw nothing wrong with the masters of war until he jumped like a rat from their stinking death ship just a few short years ago. Now he’s turned coat and exposed some of his masters deciet and feels this should give him some special standing within the antiwar community. Get to the back of the line Scott. You were useful for awhile, now you’re being an irritation.

When I saw the title of the article and then the author, I thought he was being sarcastic. The answer to war is more war. The answer to unprecendented military build-up is more military build-up. What’s the use of having all those soldiers hanging around if you can’t use them?

Eisenhower was right, but nobody listened to what he said in his farewell speech. Now the military-industrial complex is the military-industrial-petroleum complex. There are something in excess of 735 U.S. bases throughout the world in other people’s countries.

The government and the arms manufacturers and KBR types are sucking the lifeblood - literally - out of the U.S. The debt is enormous and they are still spending. It’s like having a high limit credit card stolen, maxed out and then tossed, leaving the cardholder with none of the goods and all of the bills.